Comparison of Clinical Problems in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy between Prone Position with Pneumothorax Procedure and Lateral Position


Study Objective: We compared the effects of intraoperative body position on blood gas and fluid balance in patients undergoing a thoracoscopic esophagectomy as well as during operation and postoperative laboratory data. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Operating room and intensive care unit. Patients: ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients (n = 26), scheduled for elective thoracoscopic esophagectomy and immediate reconstruction under general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation were enrolled. Interventions: Patients were assigned to either the lateral (n = 16) or prone (n = 10) position groups based on the planned intraoperative body position. A pneumothorax procedure was concomitantly performed only in the prone position group. Measurements: Fluid balance, PaO2/FIO2 ratio (P/F ratio), and maximum PaCO2 during the operation and postoperative laboratory data were analyzed. Main Results: There were no significant differences between the groups for amount of blood loss, blood transfusion, fluid infusion, or urine output. The P/F ratio during one-lung ventilation was significantly higher in the prone than the lateral position group (379 ± 122 vs. 297 ± 67 mmHg, p = 0.017), as was maximum intraoperative PaCO2 (72.2 ± 15.6 vs. 48.3 ± 6.3 mmHg, p < 0.001). Conclusions: A thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position performed concomitantly with a CO2 pneumothorax procedure resulted in a significantly better P/F ratio during one-lung ventilation as compared to the lateral position, indicating that the prone position is more advantageous for oxygenation.

Share and Cite:

Y. Kasagi, R. Okutani, Y. Komatsu, Y. Oda and Y. Yamashita, "Comparison of Clinical Problems in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy between Prone Position with Pneumothorax Procedure and Lateral Position," Open Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 3 No. 3, 2013, pp. 148-151. doi: 10.4236/ojanes.2013.33034.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] J. D. Luketich, M. Alvelo-Rivera, P. O. Buenaventura, et al., “Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Outcomes in 222 Patients,” Annals of Surgery, Vol. 238, 2003, pp. 486-494. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000089858.40725.68
[2] T. Fabian, A. A. McKelvey, M. S. Kent and J. A. Federico, “Prone Thoracoscopic Esophageal Mobilization for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy,” Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 21, 2007, pp. 1667-1670. doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9193-0
[3] A. Cuschieri, “Thoracoscopic Subtotal Oesophagectomy,” Endoscopic Surgery & Allied Technologies, Vol. 2, 1994, pp. 21-25.
[4] C. Palanivelu, A. Prakash, R. Senthilkumar R, et al., “Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Thoracoscopic Mobilization of the Esophagus and Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy in Prone Position-Experience of 130 Patients,” Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol. 203, 2006, pp. 7-16. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.03.016
[5] T. Fabian, J. Martin, M. Katigbak, A. A. McKelvey and J. A. Federico, “Thoracoscopic Esophageal Mobilization during Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Prone versus Decubitus Positions,” Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 22, 2008, pp. 2485-2491. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-9799-x
[6] T. Akaishi, I. Kaneda, N. Higuchi, et al., “Thoracoscopic en Bloc Total Esophagectomy with Radical Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 112, 1996, pp. 1533-1540.
[7] T. Fukunaga, A. Kidokoro, M. Fukunaga, K. Nagakari, M. Suda and S. Yoshikawa, “Kinetics of Cytokines and PMNE in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy,” Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 15, 2001, pp. 1484-1487. doi:10.1007/s00464-001-0039-x
[8] H. Osugi, M. Takemura, M. Higashino, N. Takada, S. Lee and H. Kinoshita, “A Comparison of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Oesophagectomy and Radical Lymph Node Dissection for Squamous Cell Cancer of the Oesophagus with Open Operation,” British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 90, 2003, pp. 108-113. doi:10.1002/bjs.4022

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.